NANDLAL MADHAVJI THAKKAR,MULUND MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 29 2 MUMBAI, BANDRA EAST MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1610/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 July 2026AY 2013-143 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, which had addressed all grounds raised by the assessee, including limitation. The assessee failed to appear or provide any material to controvert the findings.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against a penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee challenged the penalty on grounds of limitation and merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) was valid, considering grounds of limitation and merits, and if the CIT(A)'s order was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 275,Section 274(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SHRI JAGADISH

Hearing: 27.07.2026Pronounced: 30.07.2026

Per: SHRI JAGADISH, A.M.:

1.

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 11.09.2025 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2013–14, arising from the penalty order dated 20.05.2024 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”).

ITA No.1610/M/2026 Nandlal Madhavji Thakkar 2. The assessee has challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, inter alia, on the grounds of limitation and on merits. 3. When the appeal was called for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. We find that even on the last date of hearing, i.e., 17.06.2026, none had appeared on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, the appeal was heard with the assistance of the Ld. Departmental Representative and is being disposed of on the basis of the material available on record. 4. We have considered the submissions of the Ld. DR and perused the orders of the authorities below. The Ld. CIT(A) has passed a speaking order after considering the grounds raised and the written submissions of the assessee. Each ground, including the plea of limitation under section 275 of the Act, the challenge to the penalty on merits and the objection regarding approval under section 274(2) of the Act, has been dealt with point-wise. Despite sufficient opportunities, the assessee has neither appeared before us nor placed any material to controvert the findings recorded by the Ld. CIT(A). In these circumstances, we find no infirmity in the impugned order calling for our interference. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 30/07/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (JAGADISH) Judicial Member Accountant Member

Mumbai, Dated: 30/07/2026 Ashwani Rao Sr. Private Secretary 2

ITA No.1610/M/2026 Nandlal Madhavji Thakkar

Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT (Appeals) 5. The DR, I.T.A.T. By order

(Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →